Zone1 Are Thread Starters allowed to list posters they prohibit?

[Lisa558]

Is this about a specific thread, or is it just hypothetical?

Specific thread. The OP started a thread, and In her opening post listed posters she was prohibiting. It’s censoring people whom she knows disagree with the narrative she is advancing, and silencing us in advance.

 

[Lisa558]

That's never been my understanding.

Might you be confusing it with The Bull Ring? That, as I understand it, is for one-on-one debates, in which only the designated participants are allowed to post.

No, wasn’t in the Bull Ring.

 

[Lisa558]

I hadn't really taken notice of the Debate Now section, before, and its associated rules. Looks like the intent there is to allow the OP to set the rules for a given thread, including who may or may not participate.

Now, having seen this, I think I still have to agree that the NewsVine_Mariyam's use of it in this manner constitutes a form of intellectual cheating, and is likely to be inconsistent with the intended purpose of that section.

Yes. As I read the rules, she was supposed to invite specific participants into the thread - not name people who disagree with her and censor them.

 

[BackAgain]

Public Service announcement:

I hereby prohibit every single member and mod from responding to this post.

Thank you.

 

[norwegen]

Public Service announcement:

I hereby prohibit every single member and mod from responding to this post.

Thank you.

Okay

 

[Lisa558]

Thread has been closed. See note.
I can see the concept for in depth specific discussions, but it was being used poorly.

Thank you!

 

[BackAgain]

Okay

Do’oh!

 

[Captain Caveman]

It seems quite disingenuous for an opinionated poster to start a thread under the idea that she wants a debate - and then list posters who are “prohibited” because she knows they will disagree with her narrative?

And then can a mod work in concert with her to delete the posts of the people the thread starter declared ”prohibited”? Seems that disallowing those who disagree with her, or point out the erroneous thinking of her position, is not a real debate.

Mention posters, as long as they're not call outs, per the rules.

 

[WinterBorn]

Announcing a list of people blocked from a thread is an obvious call-out.

The only difference between that and the usual call-out thread is that those being called out cannot respond.

Couple that with this particular poster's penchant for announcing that she is tattling on posters, and the intent is anything but an honest desire to debate.

Didn't we all get enough of these manipulative teacher's pet types back in the 5th grade?

But if one wants an actual discussion, some posters are counter-productive.

 

[Lisa558]

But if one wants an actual discussion, some posters are counter-productive.

That’s all a matter of opinion. Leftists tend to judge people with opposing posts as being counter-productive.

 

[WinterBorn]

That’s all a matter of opinion. Leftists tend to judge people with opposing posts as being counter-productive.

As I stated before, it is not about the opposing opinion. It is about someone coming in, never discussing the thread but disrupting the flow of the debate with hostile nonsense & name calling.

 

[Lisa558]

As I stated before, it is not about the opposing opinion. It is about someone coming in, never discussing the thread but disrupting the flow of the debate with hostile nonsense & name calling.

It can happen, true. But concerning the thread in question, the OP came out of the gate listing people whom she knew would disagree with her premise.

 

[BlackSand]

But if one wants an actual discussion, some posters are counter-productive.

.

Anyone who is more comfortable looking for reasons something will not work ... Is counter-productive.
Others use the tools available to accomplish what they can ...

.​

 

[Dogmaphobe]

As I stated before, it is not about the opposing opinion. It is about someone coming in, never discussing the thread but disrupting the flow of the debate with hostile nonsense & name calling.

Yet, none of those types of posters were on her list. It was all people who articulate views that undercut her sense of entitlement.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yet, none of those types of posters were on her list. It was all people who articulate views that undercut her sense of entitlement.

I guess I was referring to the general idea of prohibiting specific posters.

But then, I would have found myself prohibited by some as well.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I guess I was referring to the general idea of prohibiting specific posters.

But then, I would have found myself prohibited by some as well.

Nobody in their right mind would prohibit you, dude


Of course, I say that with the understanding that being of one's right mind is far from a given here.

 

[BlackSand]

I guess I was referring to the general idea of prohibiting specific posters.

But then, I would have found myself prohibited by some as well.

.

I would think that prohibiting posters in an open discussion would be counterproductive to a discussion.

One can add a great number of people to a Private Message ... If they desire or require an echo chamber or validation.
The thread in question was never intended to address the issues ... And the OP was not really interested in debating anything.

For instance ... From the OP of the thread in question ...
"Is this possible? To confront the past so that we all can move on to a better future?"

It establish the idea of a benefit and reward for achieving something ...
The poster never established as something they will ever provide ... And clearly indicates their unwillingness to do the latter.

It is counterproductive to pursue an unachievable goal ...
And the OP of the thread in question was the one standing between anyone else ... And the goal they stated they desired.
One does not need to prohibit others if they comply or agree.

.​

 

[WinterBorn]

Nobody in their right mind would prohibit you, dude


Of course, I say that with the understanding that being of one's right mind is far from a given here.

There are a few who have gotten mad at me calling them on their bullshit. They are banned now, but still.

Thanks, Dogmaphobe. That means a lot.

 

[Zincwarrior]

.

That's the decision the mod should have made the first time they visited the tread ...
Instead of just responding to "Reports" ...

.​

Dude we are in constant crisis mode. I was actually responding to the reporting. That's all I should say.

 

[Zincwarrior]

But if one wants an actual discussion, some posters are counter-productive.

I could see it but it's twitchy. A better way is to discuss points and then report the hell out of people strawmanning.